Scientist say the wave function is a non physical reality

This is a boon for idealism and yet another crushing blow from Quantum Mechanics to materialism. You add in some of the recent studies from Psi that
show human intention can have an effect on random systems and idealism is looking like it controls the material world that we "see and
experience."

Here's more. There's 2 different sets of Scientist saying the same thing. Here's an article from Nature.

The quantum world can be quite a strange one. Particles at opposite ends of a galaxy can instantaneously react to each other, and can exist in
more than one place simultaneously. It now seems this world may be even more complicated, allowing communication to occur without a physical
medium.

It's called counter-factual communication, and a group of researchers from Saudi Arabia's King Abdulaziz City of Science and Technology (KACST) and
Texas A&M University in the US, have just published a paper in Physical Review Letters demonstrating it – at least in principle.

Imagine a communication channel between Alice and Bob, across which, normally something has to pass for communication to occur. But suppose Alice
releases a photon – through an array of beam-splitters and mirrors – that Bob can choose to either block or not block.

What he does will rouse different detectors at Alice's end. In this way, Alice can infer Bob's action by checking her own detectors. But here is
where it gets stranger: the photon didn't even have to leave Alice's side of the communication channel in order for her to know about Bob's
choice.

One of the authors of the paper, Hatim Salih, a physicist at KACST, notes that, "unlike most communication protocols, in ours it is Bob who sends a
message to Alice, not the other way round."

"This is a bit like Alice and Bob using pigeons to communicate – except that the pigeons never have to leave," says Zhenghong Li, one of the
paper's authors.

As Salih says: "I believe the question of how information gets from Bob to Alice is a deep one speaking to the heart of the debate about the reality
of the quantum state: if physical particles did not carry information between sender and receiver, what did?"

This is a paper from nature. They don't speculate what the mechanism is but they show that there's something non physical carrying the information
from Bob to Alice. Here's another paper that attributes this to the wave function.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Counterfactual quantum cryptography, based on the idea of interaction-free measurement, allows Bob to securely transmit information to Alice without
the physical transmission of a particle. From local causality, we argue that the fact of his communication entails the reality of the quantum wave
packet she transmits to him. On the other hand, the travel was not physical, because were it, then a detection necessarily follows, which does not
happen in the counterfactual communication. On this basis, we argue that the particle's wave function is real, but nonphysical. In the classical
world, the reality and physicality of objects coincide, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. Since classical cryptography is
insecure, the security of quantum counterfactual cryptography implies the nonphysical reality of the wave function.

This is from the paper.

Semi-counterfactual quantum cryptography: Alice inputs a single-photon into a beam-splitter via an optical circulator
C, which is split along arm a (internal) and b (to Bob). Each person applies either operation F (reflect) or A (absorb) randomly.
If Alice detects the photon in D0 , she knows that her and Bob’s inputs are anti-correlated. Further, if her input was F , then
Bob’s was A, making the communication of this bit counterfactual.

In contradistinction to other recent approaches to the question of the reality of the wave function, based on studying
the relationship between the wave function and an ontic space, we consider reality as contrasted from physicality,
both of which are operationally defined. Classical intuition encourages us to conflate these two concepts, which may
explain the difficulty in interpreting ψ, in spite of the successful quantitative applications of quantum theory. Our
approach shows that the wave function in counterfactual quantum cryptography is real, but non-physical. Further,
we have argued that the security of counterfactual cryptography entails non-physicality, thereby giving a concrete role
to the abstract concepts involved.

Our main idea is implicit in IFM and counterfactual computation. Invoking cryptography dramatizes the situation
by turning it into a communication scenario where physicality is linked with the issue of security. The conclusion
drawn here for the onticity of the wave function arguably strains the “peaceful co-existence” of relativity and quantum
nonlocality [20]. However, as evident from Figure 2, there is no overt contradiction with relativistic causality, because
our definition of reality is based on local causality.

So, what are they saying? Usually when we communicate the sender has to transmit a bit of information to the receiver. In this situation Bob doesn't
send any information to Alice yet Alice knows information about Bob.

There's been more debates lately in science about information and mathematics being objectively real. This goes even deeper because it says something
non physical is transmitting a physical bit of information. This can point to a non physical nature of reality that has been represented by things
like imaginary numbers and what Hawking calls imaginary time.

I have heard a bit about this from time to time. It makes the world a more interesting place for sure and lends support to so so many things that it
is just plain wild in my opinion. This COULD mean that things from telepathy to the transfer of one's soul could be possible amongst many other
possibilities. Even, with the right technology, I can definitively hear the phrase "Beam me up." sometime in the future!

Fantastic so we must have examples of Bob talking to Alice and sending encrypted data that no one can read ?

Why do I get the funny felling that you are about to say No

I will not argue about the world being physical because I don't think it is but I am still not convinced about string theory entanglement being
anything other than me sending you a left shoe in a box and then you knowing faster than the speed of light that the shoe in my hand must be a right
shoe.

The wave function is a mathematical function. It is the way we can express the probability of where the particle is in space, and has no actual
reality outside of math. It describes systems. It isn't itself an instance of the system it describes.

It does have a physical reality:

Ψ

That's the reality of your idealism, the projection of concepts upon reality as if nature bended to your mind.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: ImaFungi
I have often heard that if something like telepathy were to be proven. It would deal a sever blow to efficacy of the current laws of physics.

So it would not mean the Universe was fake.

I dont see why telepathy would be impossible. How do you think it would work though, a brain creating radio waves, or high pitch sound waves in
audible, that register with another brain, exact words or images in their brain? That sounds like a) it wouldnt be to healthy for the creator of the
telepathic message, and b) would probably use up a lot of their energy, and c) the reciver would most likely have to have the same catalogue of
sounds/wave function translation to parse meaning of the message, and d) that would be super annoying if you could hear everyone elses thoughts, or
everyone could hear everyones thoughts all the time, sheesh writing and speech is bad enough.

If 'spooky action at a distance'/non locality is a real occurring/occurable phenomenon, then the universe is not 'the realest/or truest' reality, in
other words it would be a fake of some sort, a creation, an illusive manifestation we can never comprehend or pierce the real hardware and mechanics
of. Like AI trapped on a computer screen trying to figure out what a computer chip is, and what electrons moving in it causes what. So once again,
either their math is wrong...that is to say, math was written out as theory, and they did silly dumb physicist things like giving time its own
existence and that sort of thing, other faulty assumptions and cutting corners and stuff, and the math they built their theories on is a ghostly house
of cards that will not stand but they glued it together with pixie dust and illusion juice, or their math is 100 percent correct, is an exact symbolic
replication of reality, and reality, this universal reality, must then be a fakery.

a reply to: ImaFungi
Animals communicate with pheromones and that seems a factor in what is referred to as telepathy. In other words due to the complexity of the brain we
are able to express more complex ideas than animals are able to in this way.

In and of itself though I feel it is important to point out that humans as a whole. Seem to experience some strange sensation, when certain metal
objects are placed 2 cm from their foreheads.

There is no scientific documentation in existence that seems to explain why this is happening. Myself I was brought up understanding this experience
so have had plenty of time to engage in samplings. It is really simple to do; place the copper top of a number 2 pencil about 2cm from your forehead,
then consider why you are having that experience.

Perhaps the Universe is an phenomenon inherent to a larger system like a rainbow is inherent to a thunderstorm.

originally posted by: neoholographic
This is a boon for idealism and yet another crushing blow from Quantum Mechanics to materialism. You add in some of the recent studies from Psi that
show human intention can have an effect on random systems and idealism is looking like it controls the material world that we "see and
experience."

It's almost like we're reading two separate articles. I don't see anything here that is some vindication for consciousness or intent changing
outcomes, or will or idealism (?) changing random systems. It is a very cool thing, and is a nicely demonstrated version of something that the
military's used for...ah...similar but real world systems for a while. I do understand the oddballness of it seems arbitrary and freaky. I had the
same reaction when I saw the other thing.

Imaginary numbers and imaginary time don't mean what you seem to think from your post. If you're into physics or EE you use imaginary numbers a LOT,
and they certainly do have a real, objective affect on, well, pretty much any comm theory sort of design. Or power transmission. Or anything dealing
with signals.

I could wish that they had chosen a different name for it than 'imaginary'.

If the thread's still going next time I get a break from work and if I get a break that doesn't involve a long long long long long trip that
they've got nebulously planned for us in the near future (thought it was going to be this week), I'll tell you about something freaky and similar.
Imagine, if you will, an aiming system that looks back and forward through time, looks where the beam would have landed had it landed there and
corrects the aim to be perfect before it actually (or instead of ever having) fires the beam that hits the target. I'm not talking simulating or
calculating where it would have hit, it actually looks at futures where the beam would have landed had it ever emitted that beam and converges on a
set of solutions that hits the target perfectly. It's very like the thing in the OP where the information is never sent but you can determine info
from it anyway because it COULD have been sent. In fact, I'll bet you the two systems' math is very similar or identical when you shave off the
ad-hoc bits.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I dont see why telepathy would be impossible. How do you think it would work though, a brain creating radio waves, or high pitch sound waves in
audible, that register with another brain, exact words or images in their brain?

In a disgustipating toin of events, I agree with Kashai, in a light-hearted sort of way.

It's long been my near baseless conjecture that mammals encode information into complex molecules, emit them, and they're picked up as "silent scents"
by other mammals as an evolved survival mechanism of sending information through distance or time.

Consider - your olfactory system is tied directly to memory and visualization. That's likely to keep you from poisoning yourself with that nice
looking berry the second time, but it's there. Also, there are FAR more receptors for olfactory things that do not elicit a sensation of scent than
those that do. These do SOMETHING, but we don't know what, except they are tied into memory and emotion. A 'silent scent' can evoke memories in the
target, with the target not being sure why. Also little things like panic, nervousness, contentment and so on. The military was big into this 10-20
years back.

So, what if the system's for survival? Maybe not for that animal, but for the others in the pack. If Wolf #1 is convinced he's about to be killed,
maybe he encodes that and some very brief synopsys (don't step off the eeeeeeddddgeee.....) and leaves it as a persistent non-scent marker for wolf
#2? Wolf 2 shows up, doesn't precisely "smell" it as an odor, but instead it hits his olfactory system, gets processed by the "silent scent"
receptors, and his memory/emotions/visualization centers display a non-real but perceivable vision of wolf/dying/warning/this-place which he 'sees' as
a ghost wolf dying some horrible death RIGHT HERE, and off he runs.

It's my explanation for ghosts. Ever notice that they're inside, work better with shut up, dead air, and are fragmentary visions of near-dead people,
generally in a violent situation immediately preceding death? Or in a place where there are a lot of dead people - like a cemetery? More often in old
cemeteries where they didn't seal you up tight? Scent markers.

Why not extend that to "ESP"? Maybe some people fire the thing off all the time, even when they're not leaving olfactory death notes. Maybe some
people are better at detecting it.

Interesting. The whole quantum physics thing is crazy to try and wrap my brain around. I get it but I'm sure I dont get it. Lol. What is the range
of these tests I wonder? Does this work over infinite distances or only in the same room or building? And whats its application? Could a particle
communicate with itself in the future? Its probably a dumb question phrased that way. If quantum computers work basically along the same
lines....would it be possible in theory for a computer to communicate with itself in the future?

I think they can deduce a message by interpreting which signal bob measures. If both are synced to say an atomic clock every billionth sec or
trillionth could be a 1 or 0 and if u detect that a measure took place at that time then you log it and interpret the whole. That's my silly view of
it but I'm sure there's another very strange way to see it. I need to read more.....

Aha! Here is a quote from the poster that tells us what we want to know in plain language:

"So, what are they saying? Usually when we communicate the sender has to transmit a bit of information to the receiver. In this situation Bob
doesn't send any information to Alice yet Alice knows information about Bob."

This is a perfect explanation for the way Remote Viewing works. And I don't know that it ever has been said so quite eloquently.

The medium here is the collective consciousness of the earth. An intelligence of a sort. If you know how to tap into this electromagnetic frequency
and translate it, you can know what everything on this planet knows. You would need to be able to understand what you are let know though. There are
many people trying to tap into this, and many who do without even knowing they are doing it. Now, is a person really storing information in his/her
brain or are they sharing knowledge. We can tap into this, but we cannot comprehend how a mosquito or fly views the world. We do not know how a bird
thinks. I can't even figure out what our cats are thinking about. Ask mother earth a question and it will answer, but the answer can be way over
our head. getting to the frequency others of a kind operate at is crucial.

If we are going to discuss science-fiction tropes, let us at least get our attributions right. The word 'ansible' was coined by Ursula K. Le Guin in,
I believe, a book called Rocannon's World that was published while Orson Scot Card was still a snotty teenager. It was part of the furniture of
Le Guin's Hainish universe, in which she set many stories, including her masterpiece, The Left Hand of Darkness.

Orson Scott Card is just one of a number of later SF writers who appropriated the idea from Ursula.

I don't think that first example they give is a very good example. Or is incomplete or something because this part doesn't make sense the way I'm
reading it.

What he does will rouse different detectors at Alice's end. In this way, Alice can infer Bob's action by checking her own detectors. But here is where
it gets stranger: the photon didn't even have to leave Alice's side of the communication channel in order for her to know about Bob's choice.

Using this example, Alice is getting information based upon how Bob has chosen to set his detectors which then effect Alice's detectors. She only
needs to check hers in order to know the condition of his which is fine. But I fail to see how that isn't a form of communication. Her "answer" is
still being determined because of his choices, just using an indirect way of getting the info from him to her.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.